User talk:Ropers/Archive

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!


 * I've replied to Meelar some (on his own Talk page) time ago -- I had actually been contributing to Wikipaedia for some time when he welcomed me, but it's great to be welcomed anyway! :)
 * Ropers

Boundary to space
The sources for the Gagarin statement are:


 * The Encyclopedia Astronautica - Vostok 1:
 * http://www.astronautix.com/flights/vostok1.htm

"...Gagarin ejected after reentry and descended under his own parachute, as was planned. However for many years the Soviet Union denied this, because the flight would not have been recognized for various FAI world records unless the pilot had accompanied his craft to a landing."


 * The FAI Sporting rules on Astronautics:
 * [FAI Sporting Code - Section 8 - Astronautics (http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc08.pdf)]

"2.12.4 - The pilot and crew of an aerospacecraft shall remain inside the vehicle during descent and landing. For spacecraft any method of descent and landing is acceptable provided the method is described in detail in the pre-flight plan."

What is the reference for this statement?

"Some cynics argue that the U.S. definition exists solely for historical reasons, because after the Yuri Gagarin PR disaster the U.S. needed an astronaut, and fast, so they might have decided to lower the bar a bit."

Rusty 22:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote my response to Talk:Boundary_to_space. Ropers 19:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Falcon Rockets
In answer to your questions and comments:

(1) I am at least two degrees removed from any benefit from SpaceX. Even there, the connection is rather tenuous, since I haven't been in the industry for a decade and haven't kept up my connections. (2) It is convention to give list pricing/costing numbers in space references (see, e.g., Astronautix), so that researchers can do cost per pound to Low Earth Orbit calculations. I guess that's because the industry is so heavily government influenced. In any event, DARPA purchased the first Falcon I flight for $6 million, so it's a matter of public record for that rocket at least. (3) The engines for these rockets have already been built and tested and at least the Falcon I has been fully assembled. It is true that neither have been launched yet, but the rockets exist as identifiable articles, and, as such, fully warrant present tense treatment. Please note that in my additions to the reusable launch vehicle article, I did add reference to the Kistler K-1 and the X-Prize vehicles, in anticipation of somebody adding information on those vehicles. Also, I did include cost information on the Armadillo Aerospace's Black Armadillo, so I think the NPOV has been preserved.

Because of all of these things, I am going to revert the articles for now. Dschmelzer 19:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While I maybe could have been more polite in my rebukes attendant to my edits, I still think that I was right as regards the issues. I don't think it's acceptable to have prices in Wikipedia articles, etc. I am currently seeking comments and advice from the wider community on this issue. Ropers 01:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where are these comments being offered? I would like to see what they have to say. Dschmelzer 02:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've so far asked about the issue on the the WikiEN-l mailing list. While I appreciate the desire for an open discussion, I am not however going to replicate every question or log my every move here.
 * IF most people out there share my strong concerns, THEN they'll enter into a discussion (including yourself/Dschmelzer) soon enough. Ropers 02:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we move this discussion over to the Talk:Falcon I page? Dschmelzer 04:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We can certainly do that once there is something to discuss. At the moment, I've made my point of view clear and made attendant article changes, and you've made your point of view clear and reverted those changes. I see no need (and actually think it could be harmful) to discuss this issue further unless and until either side can present further evidence and/or either view is carried by the wider public. Yea, sure, we could tell each other all kinds of things and start an edit war, but there's really no need for any escalation of any sort. Both of us claim that our views are in sync with the standards of the wider Wikipedia community. Now I'm not going to do anything further on this (and possibly won't even comment any further) until I have actually received some active, current feedback from other Wikipedians on what their views actually are on the issue, which should tell me whether my views are in sync with the said common standards or not. You're not losing anything if/while I don't get back to you, because yours is the current version. Ropers 11:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suit yourself, I guess. Dschmelzer 16:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have now copied this to Talk:Falcon I and am submitting this to RfC. Ropers 14:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The RfC is now resolved and archived off. Ropers 06:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Döner kebap and neo-nazis
This issue concerns this sentence insertion. Do you realize this article is featured on the main page under the "Did you know..." section? Based on the remark you made when you added that last statement on the bottom, you knew what you were doing, but... Although funny, I really don't feel that sort of thing is appropriate. But I'm not going to remove it myself... Just thought I'd let you know. And surely I'm not the only one that feels this way. Thanks for your other (non-trolling) work, by the way. :) Randyoo 00:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I know. I know. I know.
 * I just couldn't, couldn't resist!
 * Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! It was immature, not fitting for this project, pure idiocy and I have to &mdash; and would herewith like to &mdash; apologize to the community in any way I can. BUT I JUST COULDN'T RESIST! These bleedin' Nazi gobsh*tes just cry to be mocked, fought and defeated at every possible opportunity!!!
 * Now, again, I apologize. I do realize that even a good cause doesn't strictly warrant trolling. Especially if it's utterly POV. (Of course I wish, demand and expect the entire world to agree with me that Nazism is a junk ideology, but that doesn't make it less POV). Thanks for being so tolerant as to not ban me. :) Never done anything like that before and I'll seek to behave myself in the future. (Maybe everyone has to test the limits once.) Ropers 00:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: The sentence this concerns (see link above for diff) has kindly been removed by Montrealais shortly after my admittedly trolling insertion of it. Ropers 14:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second Ropers' complaint
Re: Neutrality Rfc

As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.

Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.

Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush
Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Can't vote on this. GWB is a very controversial article and I know too little about the above matter. The excerpt's inclusion hinges largely on whether it's NPOV enough to be there. Whether the wording can indeed be considered NPOV depends on questions of relevance and accuracy. I don't know whether it's accurate and I don't know whether it's relevant. Besides I'm a bit weary of jumping into the fray there. That's not to say I'm chickening out, but jumping right in and participating in a potentially very heated contest is something I'll only do if/once I know enough to decide whether it's worth fighting. Ropers 14:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question
You know, I don't really care what the outcome on the Neutrality name is. But it seems to me that there is a cost to him of changing the name. Neutrality has made a lot of contributions in a lot of articles, and thus has a reputation. Changing the name would lose much of that, as most people would have no idea of the change. A thought experiment for you Ropers: Would you, as the main complainant, would be willing to change your name if he does? (And I'm not suggesting that either of you should).Wolfman 22:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I would, yes. Ropers 22:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CGA page
You did some very impressive work on that page... I'm at an Internet cafe away from home so once I'm back in my home state of Australia I'll comment more! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * And you know what? The article has just reached FA status! :-) Ropers 06:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

counting contribs
If memory serves, mediawiki already has the capability to keep a running total of user contributions. I believe it's turned off on wikipedia (and has been for years) because it entails writing to another table for each article update - the consequent locking being a nontrivial performance issue. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sonja Elen Kisa

 * Hey Matt, I encourage you to vote on Votes_for_deletion/Sonja_Elen_Kisa if you have an opinion either way.--Sonjaaa 22:03, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I ain't Matt. Ropers 22:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, wrong page. I'm sorry!--Sonjaaa 04:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)